Rasulullah Sallallaho alaihe wasallam has said, "When you have paid Zakaat on your property, you have paid what was due from you (if you spend more, it will count as Nafl Sadaqah). But he who gives Sadaqah out of the property earned by unlawful means (usury, bribery, etc.), will get no reward for that and he will also suffer from the evil of his unlawful earnings". Note: This Hadith contains two subjects: Firstly, only Zakaat is due on one’s property as incumbent (Wajib) levy. Apart from Zakaat, there are degrees of virtues in Nafl Sadaqah and voluntary spending for the sake of Allah Ta’ala. A Hadith says: "He who has paid Zakaat has paid what was due from him on his property; and he who gives more than what is due, is more virtuous". (Kanz) The Hadith narrated by Dhimam Ibne Tha’labah Radhiallaho anho is quite famous, and has been mentioned in different channels in Bukhari, Muslim and many other authentic collections of Ahadith. It relates that Dhimam Radhiallaho anho asked Rasulullah Sallallaho alaihe wasallam about the fundamental obligatory requirements of Islam, which the latter explained to him in detail. Among these, Rasulullah Sallallaho alaihe wasallam mentioned Zakaat, whereupon Dhimam asked, "Is there anything else due from me, apart from Zakaat?" Rasulullah Sallallaho alaihe wasallam replied, "No, but you can spend more as Nafl Sadaqah if you like". A man sold a house during the time of Khalifah Umar Radhiallaho anho who advised him to dig a hole in his residence and bury the sale money to keep it safe. The man asked, "Will it not be treated as Kanz Treasure (Hoarded money) for which the possessor shall be punished on the Day of Judgment?" Umar Radhiallaho anho said, "A property on which Zakaat has been paid shall not be treated as ‘Kanz’." Ibne Umar Radhiallaho anho has said, "I wouldn’t mind keeping in my possession an amount of gold weighing as much as Mount Uhad, if I kept on paying Zakaat due on it and observing other commands of Allah Ta’ala with regard to it". (Durre Manthur). There are many more Ahadith to that effect in the compilations of Ahadith. Therefore, the four great Imaams of ‘Fiqh’ (Islamic jurisprudence) and the generality of Ulama are agreed that, apart from Zakaat, nothing is due on property as such. However, there are other obligations of a Muslim which involve spending of money; for example, the maintenance of one’s minor children. There are other similar cases in which spending of money becomes incumbent upon a Muslim. Another such case is helping a man who is facing death, if food or water is not given to him immediately. It is the collective responsibility (faradh-e-Kifayah) of a community to save him from such a death. Imaam Ghazali Rahmatullah alaihe has written in his book, Ihyaa-ul-Uloom: Some (Tabi’een) like Imaam Nakh’ee, Sha’bi, Ataa and Mujahid Rahmatullah alaihim are of the view that there is something more due on property, apart from Zakaat. Someone asked Imaam Sha’bi Rahmatullah alaihe, "Is there anything due on property, apart from Zakaat?" He replied, "Yes", and recited the following Ayat: "And gives his wealth, for love of Him….(to the end)" This has been quoted in full at serial No. 2 in Chapter one. These Legists hold that it is incumbent upon the Muslim that the rich among them should supply the needs of the poor when they come to know of their necessity. According to ‘Fiqh’ the soundest opinion is that, when a person is driven to a stage that, if his need is not fulfilled immediately, he may suffer death, it becomes a collective obligation (Faradh-e-Kifayah) of the whole community to supply his need, though the opinions differ as to whether he should be granted a loan or a donation. (Ihyaa). It is an incumbent (Wajib) act, in itself, to supply the need of a person who has been driven to dire necessity and may be facing death through hunger or thirst. But nothing is due from a wealthy person on his wealth, apart from Zakaat. At this point, I would like to invite the attention of my readers to two points:1. ‘Ifraat’ (Extremism). Nowadays, we are accustomed to go to extremes; so immediately, we transgress the limits of propriety. For example, it is unlawful to take another man’s property except with his own sweet will. Some legists do allow taking another man’s property as a last resort when someone’s life is in danger. But even in such cases, within the Hanafi school of thought, there are two views: one permits eating of carrion in preference to another man’s property; the other view accepts the reverse position that, in a helpless state, instead
130